[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

[Phil! Gold]

* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> [2011-03-21 18:03 +0100]:
> The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add
> further details, which might be interesting for the users of the
> sidewalk.

I think that one very good reason for adding sidewalks is simply to allow
better routing for foot traffic.  A great many sidewalks run parallel to
roads without any complicating obstacles or barriers; for those, not only
is this proposal completely sufficient, but it is gives mappers a very
simple way to map them.

> All of these details are not possible to enter following this
> proposal. As soon as you tried to enter more detail (using complicated
> tags like sidewalk:width:right=0.7m) you will have to split the
> street-highway even if it is not concerned itself, because of surface
> changes or width changes on one of the sidewalks.

I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate
ways.  Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add
sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add
further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the separate-ways
method.  But I think that a simple tagging approach that covers a great
number of common cases is worth using.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
No cow's like a horse
and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity
anyhow.
                       -- "Similarity (Commutative Law)", Piet Hein
---- --- --